Folks,
Here's your deseemoron, the village idiot, again.
After my earlier musing on Maria Susairaj matter, 'SEARCH FOR JUSTICE', I read the relevant specifics of Sessions Judge M. W. Chandwani's judgement in the Indian Express today. Hon'ble Judge has stated that his reason of rejecting the prosecution's argument about the conspiracy theory is that, "for a feeble woman (Maria Susairaj), to kill a man with plenty of brawn, is impossible......Neeraj, who had plenty of brawn than Susairaj, it would not be possible for Susairaj, a girl 25 years old, by her feminine and with her feeble body to kill Neeraj Grover." (Sic).
But Sirs, my issue is different. I am not talking about the first flush of stabbings supposedly by Emile Jerome which perhaps did or did not kill Neeraj Grover. I am talking about the hacking later on; the cutting of his body into several (300?) pieces bit, in which apparently Emile Jerome and Maria Susairaj both took part. In any event, this has been admitted by her that she herself had gone out to purchase the butcher's knife and the three large bags, to give effect to their plan for cutting the body into several small pieces for easy stuffing into the bags and transportation to the place of disposal. So at least, this part of the conspiracy is admitted by her.
Now the crucial question is; was Neeraj really dead when they cut his body into pieces or did he die as they were in the process of cutting him into pieces? Has it not happened before, that even after grievous injuries or after having been given up as dead, a person was revived at the hospital because undetected by others, there was still life left in him/her? The veracity of either contention could only have been proved by forensic examination, which was cruelly denied because of either sheer adventurism or plain conspiracy to kill by the two accused.
Please assume for a moment that Neeraj was not quite dead when he was cut into pieces. And if it were so, then was it not an act of murder to cut his body into pieces? If Hon'ble Judge's judgement is founded on an assumption by him, that " it would not be possible for Susairaj, a girl 25 years old, by her feminine and with her feeble body to kill Neeraj Grover"; then why can't the other assumption also not be given credence or consideration, that "he was alive when he was cut into pieces and thus was inadvertently or may be even deliberately murdered?".
Thus, I beg you intelligent folks and the judge to answer me: "My Lord; DID HE HAVE LIFE IN HIM, WHEN NEERAJ GROVER WAS CUT INTO PIECES?"
I'm a village idiot, but in true democracy even I deserve an answer.
Cheers,
Deseemoron
Here's your deseemoron, the village idiot, again.
After my earlier musing on Maria Susairaj matter, 'SEARCH FOR JUSTICE', I read the relevant specifics of Sessions Judge M. W. Chandwani's judgement in the Indian Express today. Hon'ble Judge has stated that his reason of rejecting the prosecution's argument about the conspiracy theory is that, "for a feeble woman (Maria Susairaj), to kill a man with plenty of brawn, is impossible......Neeraj, who had plenty of brawn than Susairaj, it would not be possible for Susairaj, a girl 25 years old, by her feminine and with her feeble body to kill Neeraj Grover." (Sic).
But Sirs, my issue is different. I am not talking about the first flush of stabbings supposedly by Emile Jerome which perhaps did or did not kill Neeraj Grover. I am talking about the hacking later on; the cutting of his body into several (300?) pieces bit, in which apparently Emile Jerome and Maria Susairaj both took part. In any event, this has been admitted by her that she herself had gone out to purchase the butcher's knife and the three large bags, to give effect to their plan for cutting the body into several small pieces for easy stuffing into the bags and transportation to the place of disposal. So at least, this part of the conspiracy is admitted by her.
Now the crucial question is; was Neeraj really dead when they cut his body into pieces or did he die as they were in the process of cutting him into pieces? Has it not happened before, that even after grievous injuries or after having been given up as dead, a person was revived at the hospital because undetected by others, there was still life left in him/her? The veracity of either contention could only have been proved by forensic examination, which was cruelly denied because of either sheer adventurism or plain conspiracy to kill by the two accused.
Please assume for a moment that Neeraj was not quite dead when he was cut into pieces. And if it were so, then was it not an act of murder to cut his body into pieces? If Hon'ble Judge's judgement is founded on an assumption by him, that " it would not be possible for Susairaj, a girl 25 years old, by her feminine and with her feeble body to kill Neeraj Grover"; then why can't the other assumption also not be given credence or consideration, that "he was alive when he was cut into pieces and thus was inadvertently or may be even deliberately murdered?".
Thus, I beg you intelligent folks and the judge to answer me: "My Lord; DID HE HAVE LIFE IN HIM, WHEN NEERAJ GROVER WAS CUT INTO PIECES?"
I'm a village idiot, but in true democracy even I deserve an answer.
Cheers,
Deseemoron
No comments:
Post a Comment